Skip to main content

About your Search

20121129
20121207
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
and bridges and our schools. and i want to do all this while bringing down our deficits in a balanced and responsible way. [ applause ] on this last point, you probably heard a lot of talk in washington and in the media about the deedlines that we're facing on jobs and taxes and investment. this is not some run-of-the-mill debate. this isn't about which political party can come out on top in negotiations. we've got important decisions to make that are going to have a real impact on businesses and families all across the country. our long-term goal is to get our long-term deficit under control in a way that is balanced and is fair and that would be good for businesses, for our economy, for future generations. and i believe both parties can and will work together in the coming weeks to get that done. we know how that gets done. we're going to have to raise a little more revenue, we've got to cut out spending we don't need, building on the trillion dollars of spending cuts we've already made, and if we combine those two things, we can create a path where america's paying its bills while
anything on entitlements, would prefer frankly not to have to do anything on some of these debt and deficit problems. if you look at the numbers, then medicare in particular, will run out of money and we will not be able to sustain that program, no matter how much taxes go up. i mean it's not an option for us to just sit by and do nothing. >> that was president obama in the summer of 2011 speaking the hard truths about entitlements. it did not exactly play well for him then and he's been largely quiet on the issue since, perhaps because for both parties talk of cutting social security and medicare hurts a lot. >> there's a pain point that democrats have to reach as well. it's not just republicans. that both sides have to be able to get to the end of this things and say, yes, the president won re-election but there is nobody that gets away with this thing without feeling pain. >> and there are some on the left who hope to get through this without having to go under the knife. adam green, co-founder of the progressive change campaign says -- yesterday on abc's "this week" congressman keith el
shot down the theory of closing loopholes to cut the deficit saying it's exactly that. a theory. >> it is not possible for us to raise the amount of revenue that's required for a balanced package if all you're relying on is closing deductions and loopholes. it is possible to do theoretically. it is not possible or wise to do as a practical matter. >> the president then threw a left hook warning republicans who think they might be aim able to use the debt ceiling as leverage in future negotiations and saying essentially dream on. >> if congress in any way suggests that they're going to tie negotiations to debt ceiling votes and take us to the brink of default once again, as part of a budget negotiation, which by the way we have never done in our history until we did it last year, i will not play that game. because we've got to break that habit before it starts. >> joining me now from the capitol dome, nbc's luke russert. i don't know, i think that was what we call officially laying the smack down over there at the business roundtable. i was really surprised that the president wen
help in the push to reduce the deficit. the problem, stalled proposals to replace the expired program include billions of dollars in cuts to food stamps. the senate bill would shave $4.5 billion from the program over ten years. the house version would slash $16 billion over the same time period. the congressional budget office estimates the house bill would throw upwards of $3 million people off the food stamp roles and hundreds of thousands of children denied free school lunches. needless to say the cuts could not come at a worst time for recipients. as of august, 47 million people americans relied on food stamps to keep from going hungry up from 31 million just four years ago. joining me on set, the author of "the juice," and in the nation's capitol, cnbc's chief washington correspondent, john harwood. we have our sage of capitol hill luke russert on set here. you're holding it down in the nation's capital. in firms of the discussions of the fiscal cliff, the white house is focused solely on cuts for top earners. almost no discussion of unemployment insurance and payroll taxes, the
/unquote reduce the deficit which is what we're being asked to do. so if you ask -- if you ask people if they raise taxes will they just spend it? most americans think they'll just spend it. if you raise taxes on the rich, do you think they'll also raise taxes on the middle class? most americans think that's true as well. you have to take the question several levels. the american people understand if you tax the rich, be the democrats haven't finished the sentence. tax the rich first. obama, if he got his taxes on the rich, is still $8 trillion short over the next decade. that's where the energy taxes he's going to present and the value added tax that ultimately turns us into a european welfare state only of that can pay for obama's sized government. >> wow. grover, unfortunately we have to leave it there. our discussion of unicorns will continue, i'm sure, at least up until december 31st. thank you for joining us today as always. >> you got it. >> after the break, offer ver ses counteroffer. we will break both down with ezra klein when he joins us next on "now." i gave birth to my da
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)